> Turns out the author was the attacker, and with that confirmed, it appears that their access was restored so they could proceed with it.

I suspect this is how it played out as well. In fact, there was a lot of people on Twitter who were questioning whether the author really got suspended since he was posting to github a day or two after he posted his suspension picture.

Like I said above: if that really was how it happened, I would be totally okay with that, and it's completely understandable. But without a public statement from Github on such a visible and public controversy, we're left to speculate on their motives. Many people here disagree about why and whether Github should have or did suspend Marak. I would say that your view is the maximally charitable view to Github themselves. And frankly it's very likely to be true. But it seems like a lot of people believe that Github should have suspended his account, and I disagree with that.

People don't just believe his account should have been suspended, they feel that he should be prosecuted and charged with civil tort given the comments. I think they are ridiculous Karens who would destroy open source in a heartbeat given the opportunity.